|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Dear RT'ers
This will be the last post to this forum from Cowan or Stewart. The RT
moderator has made a decision on this...so I will not be posting
messages on behalf of either Cowan or Stewart in the future. I will,
however, post Cowan's last message as it was written by him before the
decision was made to cut off this thread. I hope that those uninterested
in this thread...and the moderator...will not be too upset with this
final post.
Andre
____________________________________________________________
NOTE: Cowan's response to Stewart is identified below as "Cowan:"
>Dear Mr. Cowan,
>
>I find it strange that you consider $3,600 to be an expensive price for
>an
>education of the level contained in Baumring's Courses. I am sure you
>have
>spent far more than this on your education, and are aware that most
>universities these days charge over $20,000 per year for a standardized
>education that has very little practical value or applicative relevance.
>Most college students enter the work place finding it difficult to
>obtain a
>job due to their lack of experience even after spending over $50-80K on
>their education, and most of them come out with very little knowledge,
>and
>with nothing that cannot be purchased at any public bookstore. The
>course
>work covered in the Baumring teachings is equivalent to a Ph.D. level
>education, and covers more topics and fields than any university program
>I
>have ever seen. This sounds cheap to me, and I know that most traders
>have
>lost much more than this in their uneducated attempts at market trading.
>Even Gann charged $5,000 in 1939 for his #3 Master Forecasting Course,
>an
>equivalent to $50,000 in today's dollars, and one can obtain this
>material
>today for a few hundred dollars. It strikes me that the world today is
>suffering a crisis of value, when people are unwilling to invest as much
>in
>their education as the poorest person invests in his automobile.
>
>To answer your question regarding Wendy Baumring's "need" for the money
>from
>the notebooks, she does not "need" it. Wendy has all the money she
>"needs"
>to take care of herself for the remainder of her life.
Cowan: She should since Baumring charged about 25-30 people $25,000 -
$35,000 to be his "private students". That totals almost 1 million
dollars
right there. Add to that, those worthless seminars and you're well over
a
million.
Might we ask you
>with all of your trading "expertise" why you "need" the money from your
>books, or why you "need" to appropriate material from other original
>sources
>such as the Gann material you copied from Lambert-Gann and from the
>Investment Centre in order to sell for your own profit, when you are
>already
>so rich from your own million dollar trades?
Cowan: I have about 10 copies of every course of Gann's that I offer for
sale. Most of these were sent to me by older gentlemen who do not trade
any
longer and they bought them directly from Gann. I pick the best copy for
my
publications. I publish them because I enjoy it, certainly not for the
money involved because there is very little.
Wendy Baumring's royalties
>are
>her legal rights as are the royalties from your books your rights, which
>you
>make so clear in requiring everyone to sign a non-disclosure agreement
>at
>risk of financial and legal penalty in order to obtain your books.
Cowan: That's because my books provide unique and valuable material that
no
one ever produced before, including Baumring. Baumring just copied
material
from others work, mostly science and engineering texts. The examples you
posted on your web site in an attempt to support your case just proved
mine.
Those vectors are not PTVs! He is summing sin waves the way that is
taught
in Freeshman engineering "Vector Statics and Dynamics" classes. Check
out
the book, it's about 3 inches thick and does nothing but vector
analysis. I
reference it in my latest printings. AFter looking at that book try to
keep
a staight face when you claim I learned vectors from Baumring! There is
nothing on those pages you posted from the seminars that I can not find
in
my engineering/physics text books that I studied years before BAumring.
I
proved this to Ruff/Pich by sending them the copies.
>
>The material posted on my website has been posted there for over 6
>months
>and the selections were not in any way chosen with you in mind,
Cowan: Of course it was. This exchange between yourself, Ruff, Pich, and
me
has been going on for over a year. If you had something that showed the
PTVs
you can bet it would be on your site. Or if you had the planetary cycle
work I do. That's because you have nothing to show. It's simple, Mr.
Stewart, you made false claims that my material was from Baumring, show
it
or retract your statement.
hence it
>is
>strangely coincidental that even those few sample pages happen to cover
>information which you claim Baumring never taught or mentioned to
>anyone.
>The listing of the contents of the Seminars should be very useful in
>helping
>people to verify the topics Baumring did or did not discuss, and the
>reading
>list containing, for example, numerous works on planetary cycles which
>you
>say Baumring never discussed,
Baumring never discussed planetary cycles in the seminars I attended.
Even
if you can dig through your notes and find a few vague planetary
references
he made while not in my presence it is a HUGE jump from there to what
I'm
doing with my type of planetary cycle work. Mine doesn't even fit into
the
general category of Astrology.
is clear evidence of the points we are
>discussing. Whether this can be considered an "infomercial", I wonder,
>particularly considering that I was drawn into this discussion through
>your
>own comments promoting your own work, the like of which I have heard
>exist
>in several places on the Internet, so I suppose you are qualified to
>judge
>its "infomercial" status.
>
>As to whether Greg Ruff was ever a student of or worked with Cowan,
Cowan: The first time I heard of Ruff was after I published my books and
he
attended a meeting discussing them. I never attended a seminar that he
made
a presentation. I understand there was only one or two of those. These
facts
are easily verified by looking at the attendance records.
>anyone
>interested would have to ask Greg himself, though I think I know what
>his
>answer will be, and it will probably not be affirmative. I have
>experienced
>frustrating engagements with Greg of the same sort that I have
>experienced
>with Cowan, and have always attempted to openly work out whatever
>differences arose between either of them privately, which I have done in
>the
>past with both of them. My personal comments to Cowan regarding Greg
>which
>accompanied the opinion letter posted earlier were never intended to be
>shared publicly, that was Cowan's choice for his own reasons.
Cowan: My point was to demonstrate that you are disingenuous when you
begin
citing Ruff as a source.
As I have
>said about Cowan's work, I think Greg Ruff's work is of value to the
>serious
>student, even though I don't agree with all of his methods of
>presentation
>as I have disagreed with Cowan's. I do respect Greg for at least giving
>credit to his sources and his teacher, Baumring, something I for years
>now
>been at odds with in Cowan's case.
Cowan: AS I said before, just show me an example from any source of
Baumring
calculating a PTV. You can't because he didn't. Or, the planetary cycle
work
I do. You can't because he didn't.
I truly don't understand what gets
>into
>everyone when they decide to take the public stage, I can only chalk it
>up
>to ego. It is much simpler and smarter to be direct and clear about the
>facts one presents to the world so as to avoid difficulties the like of
>which Cowan has experienced in these and other discussions.
cowan: I abhor the public stage and have avoided it all my life. That's
why
I always turn down offers for seminars, interviews, etc. My point in
pursuing this debate is to give you the opportunity to engage me to
prove
your case. You have been unable to provide even the simplest example of
Baumring calculating a PTV or laying out a simple planetary cycle on a
chart. If you had any self-respect you would now retract your false
statements.
>
>I must admit that it is my preference to engage philosophers and
>scientists
>over traders, as they are generally motivated by their quest for wisdom
>rather than their quest for dollars. My experience has been that there
>is
>generally a much greater sense of respect and integrity evinced by those
>whose goal is not financially orientated. As the Bible says, "The love
>of
>money is the root of all evil." Those who have read the correspondences
>in
>this discussion will understand exactly what I mean, as demonstrated by
>the
>slanderous and hostile comments and feelings propagated by those who
>claim
>to be the "teachers" and "masters" of this field of study. Imagine how
>you
>would feel about statements such as we have seen here if they came out
>of
>the mouth of a Buddha, Christ or Einstein, and you will understand why I
>have never until now engaged in any such discussions. I propose we have
>an
>end to this discussion, as the parties involved seem to have left our
>original topic in deference to whatever negativity they are able to find
>about anyone even if not in any way pertaining to the topic.
>
>I wish anyone seeking understanding of any kind success in their quest.
>
>Brad Stewart
|